“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Tuesday, 19 September 2017

Good Golly, Dr. Gilley, hush your mouth!

I am grateful to my e-pal, Whitewall, for sending me a link to a site called 'Legal Insurrection' which featured a report on the activities of Dr. Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science at Portland State University. Before I go into details I should just make clear that I am exceedingly doubtful that politics can ever be scientific! Even so, Dr. Gilley, whilst he may not win any further awards after his PhD, or indeed, might not even be able to hang on to his PhD, deserves a medal of some sort for proposing - gulp! - colonialism wasn't that bad, and indeed, that it had some very positive advantages for the colonised. Cue: shrieks of 'shlock-horror' from the usual suspects. Here is a photo of Dr. Gilley and I can't help thinking that it would have been more in character if he had simply held up one finger!

Personally, I am not able to decide whether colonialism was, in the words of Sellars & Yeatman, "A Good Thing" or "A Bad Thing" and in any case it is a moot point because one thing is for sure - it was inevitable! In support of Dr. Gilley's opinion, I would simply say a word on behalf of Indian widows. Prior to us cruel Brits taking over their country, it was an established custom that any Indian wife who had the temerity to outlive her husband would be tied to a stake and burned alive! We put a stop to that. So there are quite a few Indian widows who should be most grateful!

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There is only one opinion that does count and that is the opinion of the people being colonized. And I will be damned if a I can find a single nation of people on earth who demanded that other people with guns come and compel them to turn over their land and natural resources for the benefit of the colonizers. And you know the people who praise colonialism are full of crap because when you ask them if it would be okay if a more powerful nation took over their country and subjugated their people and hauled off their natural resources they never seem to see the benefits.

You know what is also true? You can always find some idiot on the internet who is prepared to say that what you want to believe is a good thing. So would you like Britain to be colonized by the EU?

An argument over colonialism being good or bad is pointless and a bit pretentious. History unfolded as it did and the general consensus is that no people anywhere want to be colonized. Bruce Gilley wanted his name in the paper and, good for him, got it there.

Following the links through the story can eventually get to a refutation in the Washington Post:

"Crawford Young’s metaphor for African colonial rule, the Lingala phrase “Bula Matari” (breaker of rocks), rightly captures the terror and arbitrary abuses under which so many colonized people suffered. Central Africa lost as much as one-third of its population during the early years of colonial rule, while centuries later, the parts of Africa most affected by the transatlantic slave trade still suffer from lower levels of community trust than their neighbors.

To gloss over this enduring legacy of colonialism, and to argue that somehow today’s fragile states might be better off by “reclaiming colonial modes of governance,” as Gilley’s article suggests, is simply ignoring a vast body of research and analysis that demonstrates just the opposite."

Sorry, Bob, but one place I would not look to for a judicial examination of the pros and cons of colonialism would be the WaPo!

I would also remind all you stalwart anti-colonialists that life, or more likely, death, in those pre-colonial territories was not some sort of nirvana. It is also worth remembering that the most active slave traders were Arabs and Blacks until, of course, we Brits put a stop to it!

So you no longer used slavery to extract the local resources? Kudos. You paid the locals the going wages to haul off their countries natural resources and ship it where you liked. And it was the going wage because you got to set that and any of the locals who got uppity about it didn't get a pat on the back did they? All those British troops stationed in the colonies were there to protect them from foreign invasion were they? I mean in case some other evil nation wanted to occupy the same colony and squeeze it for all it was worth. They weren't their to suppress the locals in case they got ideas? Nonsense. You used African villages to practice the application of air war the same way the Germans used Guernica. That isn't ancient history.

I see the same arguments from the pro-slavery crowd. It wasn't all bad they say. Yes it was. The argument that the people were better off under colonial rule is almost never true. It wasn't even true in Canada where we had two rebellions never mind Africa or Asia. For Christ's sake you were growing opium in India so you could feed it to the Chinese through Hong Kong. Prior to which they didn't have a drug problem.

When you tell these people this is ancient history and shouldn't matter maybe you should keep in mind that it is their history and they get to decide what will forgotten and forgiven.

I was surprised to see the Dr. Gilley article in a publication in today's "locked up rectum" known as leftist run academia. There is plenty to take issue with of course. But what I find most instructive is the over the top almost totalitarian like reaction by other "academics". It's fine to disagree, but too much of the reaction is completely illiberal.

Now, now, Bob, I am tempted to mark you with 'Could do better'! I don't give a stuff what 'Dim Dave' thinks about anything. And I am perfectly well aware that life was exceedingly rough in 18th century Britain because - life was exceedingly rough EVERYWHERE in the 18th century! You risk, Sir, falling to the abysmal levels of 'you know who'!

Thanks for the links, JK, and I am pleased that US-Israel relations have been repaired following Obama's deliberate and stupid wrecking.

Of course, Bahrein's gradual move towards the west can be traced back to my influence when I spent nearly a year living in a tent at the end of runway #2 at Bahrain airport, circa 1962. Proper little Lawrence of Arabia, I was!

Oh, please, please, please, please don't compare me to Peter! I wouldn't do that to you!

Actually, you made my point. It doesn't make sense to judge people or events of the past - when life was nastier, shorter and more brutish - by 21st century standards. Now, why is it I should always be honest and direct with you?

Duffers your reference to the practice of Suttee being banned is pertinent. General Napier is the "Colonial Villain" who ended it. I mean fancy considering that Hindu women should continue to exist after their husbands had quit this mortal coil.

General Napier.

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on their husband’s funeral pyre.]”

That's okay Bob. I don't mind a bit but I have to say I think your opinion remarkably stupid. Do you seriously expect Black people to forgive and forget slavery and Jim Crow and dog bites and fire hoses. The criminals always want their crimes to be forgiven but only when they don't want them to be praised. Hence this piece about the benefits of colonialism. Those statues of racist douchebags outside of courthouses throughout the South are there to remind who about their position in the world exactly? Doesn't look to me like the rascist assholes want one bit of that to be forgotten. If you want that shit to be forgiven and forgotten here's a big hint about how to go about it: don't try and defend it and tell the people who got screwed how it was really good for them. You seriously think telling the people who got the shitty end of the stick to shit up about it works? Let's try a thought experiment here all night the ones of asking David if he'd like the Europeans or the Africans if he'd like them to colonize his country? Don't you those whiny ass midwestern Trump voters who couldn't compete in the world markets to just shut up about it? It's ancient history, they lost.

You better get a grip on reality when you're going on about, " Those statues of racist douchebags outside of courthouses ..."

In my own state of Arkansas there's a monument sited on the state's national cemetery that the "anti-statue crowd" in its ignorance has set its sights on. (You might be unaware - probably not though because as you've so stated, "[B]ut I'm the most intelligent person here" .. ergo, if I know it, Pompous knows it. But anyway, Arkansas contributed more troops by any measure than any of its sister states to the Union.)

What it is Pompous that's so pitiful about the anti-statue crowd is they're ignoring History at their peril.

"If you want that shit to be forgiven and forgotten here's a big hint about how to go about it: don't try and defend it and tell the people who got screwed how it was really good for them."

I expect you are at least familiar with the reputation of the distinguished Professor Henry Louis Gates? Perhaps too you're aware he's done a bit of researching and then writing about his results?

Here's a sample:

"There are many thorny issues [reparations] to resolve before we can arrive at a judicious gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime. Perhaps the most vexing is how to parcel out blame to those directly involved. ... While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers, there is little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. ... [T]he sad truth is that the conquest and capture of Africans and their sale to Europeans was one of the main sources of foreign exchange for several African kingdoms for a very long time. ... ... In 1999, for instance, President Mathieu Kerekou of Benin astonished an all-black congregation in Baltimore by falling to his knees and begging African-Americans' forgiveness for the "shameful" and "abominable" role Africans played in the trade. ... Given this remarkably messy history, the problem with reparations may not be so much whether they are a good idea or deciding who would get them; the larger question just might be from whom they would be extracted."

As a native of a nation that has been invaded, colonised and ripped apart by foreign invaders over thousands of years, I feel that I can say that in time a lot of good can come from the experience. My country is still subject to colonisation by foreign invaders ,all be it that the Government seems to be actively encouraging the invasion(or doing little to prevent it) My country? The United Kingdom.

So what have the EU ever done for us? Apart of inky plinky pert breasted darlinks obviously; I was thinking about corrupt incompetent government by unelected drunken fascist luxemburgers? I mean we can have our own home grown incompetent fascists, generally less likely to be pissed which is a shame; but we can then at least have the satisfaction of voting for them or not.

I think you will probably agree that the quality of the political leadership of this country, never particularly impressive (just like everywhere else, always) has undoubtedly declined since they hived off sovereignty to Brussels.

Getting it back is a useful tool to improve that quality and hopefully get back to the dismal incompetence we enjoyed before.

If I'd made that argument it would be stupid. I'm not going to write anything bad about PM, or by extension you, who I still suspect might be PM. However, I find the crowd over there somewhat odd from many angles. I'm afraid I have to agree with the commenters here who point out that you often pop off about things you know little about. You also tend to personalize everything and bore on about other matters. I'm not going to take bait on something as absurd as Sanders being racist or the like.

I haven't a clue as to whatever it is you're meaning by, "[W]ho I still suspect might be PM" however; I've clearly noted some rather glaring changes, spelling, sentence construction, word choices, etc ... between PG's earliest "offerings" and those we're being treated to currently.

On the other hand - perhaps PG has simply "become acquainted" with Barney Magroo (though my experiences with Barney's product - and worldview - would suggest it's doubtful. More likely an incompetent competitor.)